India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

[Anthony Hines]

An interesting read on the downselect..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME11Df04.html

[Victor]

I just hope we did not screw up the procurement process and open the door to legitimate legal wrangling that delay or scuttle the MMRCA. If one goes by our track record, it looks very bad--we have screwed up almost every urgent procurement to date with the exception of non-competitive govt-to-govt deals.

I also hope that we go with the Rafale which is available in squadron strength off the shelf to plug at least a few gaps immediately. The EF won't be available for a decade or more in those numbers, if at all. It's parents have already decided to dump it in favor of the JSF.

With both the Rafale and EF we are taking a massive gamble that these companies will be around in 10-20 years. The French will eat grass before they discard Le Liberte in favor of mere economic reality so their chances are better--for the next 10-20 years. Beyond that, all bets are off.

[Singha]

unlike the UK, Italy and Spain, the french and germans have relatively lesser levels of debt and financial engineering. so there is hope the industries of these two will continue stronger than the other three.
looking at mechanical parts and machinery being sold in india - there are lots and lots of german cos selling everything from soft closing kitchen hinges, to drawer rails to cement mixers to MAN trucks etc etc. they truly have a mastery of all things mechanical and have opened plants in india to reduce cost for local market.

I have yet to see a single product made in UK (other than a few cheese and jams) in the new liberalized import indian market.

[GeorgeWelch]

An interesting read on the downselect..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME11Df04.html

Which is basically more of what we see here: uninformed speculation where they see the decision as validation of every pet grievance they have.

[SaiK]

again a good read for George:
http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14739

It is important for him to understand it is not an umbrella strategy just for the sake of being friends, but real business requirements, and how to contend it. If American laws prevents such sales, I think it is a lesson for both India and more so for USA, that refrain from participation based on CISMOA, and EUMA etc. and perhaps focus on technology participation.

There is a tremendous scope to ToT $$$ for AMCA sub components, and GaN radar. Wonder, if they see those as IPL infringement or a business oppty, all depends on understanding the requirements.

BTW, on requirements mgmt, 80% of the USA companies fail. Surprising Boeing did this, having the most process maturity.

[Singha]

they are used to dealing with obedient dogs mostly - ie Munnas and honorary Munnas whose political elites are prone to 'persuation'

[Rakesh]

I just hope we did not screw up the procurement process and open the door to legitimate legal wrangling that delay or scuttle the MMRCA. If one goes by our track record, it looks very bad--we have screwed up almost every urgent procurement to date with the exception of non-competitive govt-to-govt deals.

I also hope that we go with the Rafale which is available in squadron strength off the shelf to plug at least a few gaps immediately. The EF won't be available for a decade or more in those numbers, if at all. It's parents have already decided to dump it in favor of the JSF.

With both the Rafale and EF we are taking a massive gamble that these companies will be around in 10-20 years. The French will eat grass before they discard Le Liberte in favor of mere economic reality so their chances are better--for the next 10-20 years. Beyond that, all bets are off.

Victor, come on! America loses a contract and we are talking about the demise of Dassault? Jeez! The process has been fair from the get go. Boeing and Lockheed Martin lost on technical grounds. Period. Why is that such a hard pill to swallow? Please remember that meeting technical requirements (which has now been proven otherwise) is one thing, but exceeding them is another. Why should'nt the air force go for an aircraft that it feels exceeded the requirements?

How about when we respond to Pakistan/China in a war that is thrust upon us, can we rely on America? Look at America's past track record against us - sanctions. When has France imposed sanctions on us? France ain't no saint, but they know business. America knows business, but also wants India to be their lap dog...which will not happen. And if they want to file a legal case over being rejected for offering non-compliant aircraft, then be my guest.

they are used to dealing with obedient dogs mostly - ie Munnas and honorary Munnas whose political elites are prone to 'persuation'

Well they are not going to get that with us. If they think that by giving us a horse & pony show - like they do with Pakistan - and we are going to fall for it, then they are sorely mistaken. We can be their ally, not certainly not their client.

[suryag]

Indian CBMs towards pakis has begun
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/in ... i-has.html

[SaiK]

"ally" is abstract.. and this is where unkill thinks, others can be taken for granted. He thinks every nation on the planet has to succumb to his politics and policies, and expecting client states at various levels of munnagiri.

the point is, this is not an FMS sale as well., and there is no requirement to GUBOing, when the money for this all comes from tax paying Indians.

if we all want, we have the vote power to vote out any relationship with unkill even for support and awacs system. I am waiting to see the drawbacks on those CJ130s, P8Is, C17s etc, that is to come without those equipments, and how IAF is planning to replace them or will be allowed to do so?

If there are too many restrictions, then we still have to power to cancel each and every one of them.

[Rakesh]

Indian CBMs towards pakis has begun
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/in ... i-has.html

Subramanian Swamy has a serious gripe with anything remotely related to the Gandhis. Who are his sources? Nothing more than unsubstantiated rumours. You should see his videos on youtube about Rahul Gandhi. They are hillarious. Our version of Zaid Hamid.

[SKrishna]

^^^^


Jokers like Swamy provide the much needed humour in the drab political landscape....

[GeorgeWelch]

again a good read for George:

That's the same article that was already posted by Anthony Hines.

And my original response to it still stands.

Which is basically more of what we see here: uninformed speculation where they see the decision as validation of every pet grievance they have.

It is important for him to understand it is not an umbrella strategy just for the sake of being friends, but real business requirements . . .

It is important for you to realize that you can't project every grievance onto the decision just because you want to.

You know what everything you just listed had to do with the decision: NOTHING.

[SaiK]

Have some welch grape juice instead of kool-aid. This is not between you and me, but the larger grievances is because of GOTUS policies, so relax. OTOH, you have every right to assume this has "nothing" to do with decision, and it is something different then that is something you have to prove or disprove this article, and there is nothing further we can discuss per say.

Sope, so long..

[Rakesh]

^^^^ George Welch: Do you not have more important things to do, than to convince us SDREs that the Super Hornet is the best choice for the Indian Air Force? At the end of the day, we don't formulate policy or have any decision making ability to sway any decision in the Govt of India. Therefore what we say on this forum has no bearing in the real world. So if we feel Katrina is a good choice for the IAF...let it be. Ignorance is BLISS I am surprised at how hot & bothered you are getting over a few opinions that people hold.

[GeorgeWelch]

Have some welch grape juice instead of kool-aid.

So because I assume that the IAF procurement officials are professionals and are telling the truth, I am drinking the kool-aid?

[Rakesh]

So because I assume that the IAF procurement officials are professionals and are telling the truth, I am drinking the kool-aid?

You are assuming that IAF procurement officials are NOT professionals are NOT telling the truth. All because the Super Hornet did not get selected. Don't you think you are drinking the kool-aid?

[SaiK]

hah! now you have something to prove it. Till then, we shall approve welch grape juice here rather.

[sum]

^^ Have to admire the Americans for sticking to their stuff like fevicol and making the buyer which rejected the American stuff feel guilty!!!
If any Desi product had got rejected in a 3rd country tender, we would have been flogging ourself saying how bad our design was etc etc.

[Boreas]

Nice...

An interesting read on the downselect..
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME11Df04.html

Good read.. good too see a balanced analysis from uncle's very own!

Right way to move forward. Quoting the ending para here -

Each of these items will require both countries to deviate a bit from their standard way of operating. But that may turn out to be the secret of a successful partnership. India and the United States, each for its own reasons, sees itself as an exceptional country, not “just like everybody else.” Both expect their most important partners to recognize this “specialness.” That doesn’t mean throwing the entire rulebook out the window. But strategically chosen exceptions to the normal modus operandi will demonstrate that each of these partners recognizes the other’s unique character, and is prepared to work with it on that basis.

[Rakesh]

^^ Have to admire the Americans for sticking to their stuff like fevicol and making the buyer which rejected the American stuff feel guilty!!!
If any Desi product had got rejected in a 3rd country tender, we would have been flogging ourself saying how bad our design was etc etc.

The word is tenacity and they have LOTS of it. Kudos to them for that.

[GeorgeWelch]

So because I assume that the IAF procurement officials are professionals and are telling the truth, I am drinking the kool-aid?

You are assuming that IAF procurement officials are NOT professionals are NOT telling the truth. All because the Super Hornet did not get selected. Don't you think you are drinking the kool-aid?

Huh? I said they were likely excluded for precisely the stated reason: failing to meet some technical requirement.

It's everyone else who is saying the procurement officials are lying about the real reason.

[Luxtor]

^^^
If economic outlook is so bleak in the coming decades for the European aerospace companies in Europe, maybe we can entice Rafale and EADS to relocate to India and do business here.

[Rakesh]

Huh? I said they were likely excluded for precisely the stated reason: failing to meet some technical requirement.

It's everyone else who is saying the procurement officials are lying about the real reason.

1) Who is this "everyone" else? I would love to know.
2) If you believe that they were likely excluded for failing to meet some technical requirement, then should'nt that satisfy you? Why do you need to counter the beliefs of others, regardless of whether it is right or wrong?

[ranjbe]

Another article from Asia Times regarding Eurofighter and Rafale performance in Libya and the consequences for India's decision regarding MMRCA. ATG capabilities of both are of particular interest.

The Rafale, which entered service in 2000, is of particular interest, both because of the political-economic implications of its wide use and its unique characteristics. By contrast, the other competitor for the Indian market, the Typhoon, has only showed up sporadically over Libya, and rarely if ever in ground-strike roles. We might expect the latter to change as the competition stiffens, despite that it is primarily outfitted for air combat.

The Rafale features a sturdy air frame, long service life, exceptional maneuverability at low (sub-sonic) speeds and a unique set of avionics that allows it to both hit ground targets very efficiently and to evade anti-aircraft fire. Its electronic warfare suite, some reports have it, gives it a "virtual stealth" capability.

Its superb performance at low speeds is particularly well-suited for mountain warfare - incidentally, Gaddafi has so far avoided large-scale armor offensives in the rebel hotbeds of the western mountains - this, alongside the fact that it has performed without losses so far, will boost its export potential significantly.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME12Ak03.html

[GeorgeWelch]

1) Who is this "everyone" else? I would love to know.

You for one.

2) If you believe that they were likely excluded for failing to meet some technical requirement, then should'nt that satisfy you?

If it was done correctly, then yes.

[Rahul M]

Last post deleted owing to Hindi/ Devnagri. Honestly I didnt know that some of the people couldnt read Hindi here.
Apologies if this violates the clause of participation in a discussion in an Indian forum.

1) FA -18 failed at High altitude tests.
2) F-16 if bought allowed India to have F-35 as a future option from LM.

I couldnt figure out if this actually made sense.

if you use a language other than english kindly add a translation of the same. many people who surf from workplace might not even have Indic fonts to display devanagri correctly, even if they can read it.

[Rakesh]

You for one.

And my opinion is valid how? The GoI/IAF does not call me up to find out if I am "okay" with the down select. So why the need to convince me or anyone else otherwise?

If it was done correctly, then yes.

Good, because it was done correctly. The F-18 and F-16 failed on the technical requirements as per the IAF evaluators.

[SaiK]

see.. on the f16s, if you only buy f16s, we shall sell you JSFs is in itself a restriction.

[Sri]

George Ji, I think there has been basic misunderstanding of rules. Aim was to buy a super cool aircraft. the 600 odd criteria were to ensure minimum eligibility and to keep non serious players out. Actually IAF was looking for much better aircraft. I think US companies read the whole thing wrong and they fielded only those Aircrafts that met the criteria where as the Europeans put their best foot forward.

A thousands apologies Saar.

[abhijitm]

I once met a friend of mine in the IAF who flies Mig29s. Since he was no decision maker I asked him about his opinion on the F-16 for MRCA. His answer was as follows.
The Pakis fly it.

And of course no one has a problem buying more MKIs even though the Chinese have the Su-30.

I think this argument of yours between F-16 and Su-30 is flawed and strangely not sufficiently challenged here, even though you have thrown it number of times.

Buying F-16 and Su-30 is not exactly apple to apple.
1. chances of us having conflict/war against pakis are much more likely than china
2. china and India are historic buyers of the russian arms and both countries are well aware that its russian technology can find its way to the other country. We both have to live with that and hence we customize our russian fighters. How much customization US will allow on F-16 is questionable. No matter what US says that your version of F16 is waaaay different than paki F16, its still american version and no guarantee that the patch/add-on cannot finds its way to islamabad.

Having said this, I wonder why GoI allowed F16 to bid in first place? [OT] Also its interesting to know paki reaction of India rejecting F16. sigh of relief or despair of having a loser fighter? Fun to think hypothetically how would we react if pak rejects Su-30 over some other aircraft! [/OT]

added later: Also buying similar frontline fighter plane as paki makes us reduced to their level.

[GeorgeWelch]

see.. on the f16s, if you only buy f16s, we shall sell you JSFs is in itself a restriction.

No, you're looking at it backwards. They have repeatedly expressed a willingness to sell the F-35 with or without the F-16.

They weren't saying 'You can only get the F-35 if you order the F-16.', they were saying 'If you order the F-16 now, it eases the migration to the F-35 later.' (Presumably because you have already established relations with the same company and certain 'way of doing things' carries over from one aircraft to the other)

Sort of a lame argument, but that's what it was.

It was certainly NOT a refusal to sell the F-35 in the future unless you bought the F-16 now.

[SaiK]

what I fail to reason is that never ever USA has offered ToT in the scale India is asking. So, if at all we have to establish this non starter business relationship on the offensive weapon systems [non FMS route], something to the effect that we have done marvelous [example: Su30MKI or Brahmos] is needed, but on a smaller scale to begin with. I agree, we are little paranoid on signing agreements or anything on the paper, because that is inborn in our culture, that we face day to day problems with even careful signatures that have led to infringement of freedom to use a product the way we would like to use it.

The only option further on is get engaged in a starter project that establish a role model process to begin with. Dealing with USA, we would be extra extra extra careful on the documents we sign. There is "nothing" here to argue on this one.

I don't think we are done with this, in the sense, there are lot of not opened to public on those 600 odd parameters [page Mr Assange to leak some info here], to take this argument to details.

I am not saying we are scared to use american weapon systems, but we are scared to sign, that is all.

[ramdas]

This is partially OT, but Subramanian Swamy's statements against SG are backed by painstakingly dug out facts. It is very likely that SG is a source of unwarranted foreign influence on the GoI decision making system. The case of the Rafale, however, may be like the Bofors case: while bribes may be/very likely are involved, the product itself is an excellent weapons system. Compared to other MRCA contenders, the Rafale has its advantages: lack of unnecassarily restrictive "conditions/political baggage" is a big plus.

In the event that bribery is detected, my hope is that the Rafales continue to come even as those found involved are severely punished. The stupidity of throwing the baby with the bathwater should not be repeated in this case.

[Victor]

what I fail to reason is that never ever USA has offered ToT in the scale India is asking.

You fail to understand because it is not true. If it were, the teens would not have been allowed into the competition. USA is offering as much ToT as we asked for.

[SaiK]

ramdas, why bring in something that is not existent right now. I understand that corruption risk is higher here, and should that happen, even Rafale getting the order is out of question. The end result is, IAF will be without weapons.

Victor, prove it with a link that states USA is offering all ToTs.

[Victor]

Actually IAF was looking for much better aircraft. I think US companies read the whole thing wrong and they fielded only those Aircrafts that met the criteria

If true, why did we not spell out our specs for these "much better aircraft" right in the beginning? Legal minefield.

[Victor]

Victor, prove it with a link that states USA is offering all ToTs.

Sorry, you started it so it is your's to prove otherwise. Hint: did USA say "we will not offer the ToT you ask for" but they still got to bid?

[Sri]

Victor let make one thing clear here. THERE IS NO LEGAL MINEFIELD. There is NO sale purchase contract to enforce to start with. Courts cannot determine which aircraft is better. At the most Boeing and LM may be able to prove that India gave specs which was not akin to actual requirements, thats all. In this case the worst the courts can do is to order refund of the expense caused back to the grieving parties.

If this indeed happens, what is the downside for Boeing and LM???

Now about specs. As I said spec were given to make sure only the serious parties may apply. Specs within themselves do not spell out preference. I am sure all Aircrafts would have qualified the 600 different specs. Then the question was simply to select the best among them. Since the US side made the strategic mistake of considering the eligibility criteria as the main qualifier for the final race they almost exclusively focused on meeting the criteria only and not actually beating the competition.

I am sure if thing would have been a bit more clearer, US would have come up with the best air craft there is and kicked the Musharaff out of everybody else... unfortunately the whole thing was just one BIG misunderstanding.

As I said. A thousand apologies.....

[SaiK]

Victor, I might have stated it, but you are the one who said it is "not true". correct?

[Victor]

Courts cannot determine which aircraft is better. At the most Boeing and LM may be able to prove that India gave specs which was not akin to actual requirements, thats all. In this case the worst the courts can do is to order refund of the expense caused back to the grieving parties.

Agreed.

If this indeed happens, what is the downside for Boeing and LM???

I don't know because I'm hoping we never have to buy another fighter ever again. But if you're suggesting that we will punish them, what is the downside for India? We bought the C-130j, C-17, P8I and M777 howitzer because they are the best in class. We need more such stuff.

Since the US side made the strategic mistake of considering the eligibility criteria as the main qualifier for the final race they almost exclusively focused on meeting the criteria only and not actually beating the competition.

I'm sure this is mere speculation on your part. Nobody knows other than GoI, IAF, Boeing and LM.

I am sure if thing would have been a bit more clearer, US would have come up with the best air craft there is and kicked the Musharaff out of everybody else... unfortunately the whole thing was just one BIG misunderstanding.

If true, whose fault was this?